[2016] KEHC 7804 (KLR)
The High Court found that the cumulative default custodial sentences imposed by the trial court, to be served consecutively in default of payment of fines, resulted in a total period of imprisonment exceeding the maximum lawful sentence for the offences. This constituted an illegal sentence under Section 28(1)(b) of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 7804 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Duncan Katua Kiio; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 49 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Concurrent Sentences
- Outcome
- application allowed in part; sentences revised
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences, Judicial Discretion, Default Custodial Sentences
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Duncan Katua Kiio
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Concurrent Sentences
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred in ordering the custodial sentences to run consecutively instead of concurrently.
- 2 Whether the default custodial sentences imposed in lieu of fines exceeded the maximum lawful sentence for the offences.
- 3 Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's exercise of sentencing discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the cumulative default custodial sentences imposed by the trial court, to be served consecutively in default of payment of fines, resulted in a total period of imprisonment exceeding the maximum lawful sentence for the offences. This constituted an illegal sentence under Section 28(1)(b) of the Penal Code. The court held that it was justified in interfering with the trial court's exercise of discretion to remedy the illegality. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the consecutive default sentences and substituted them with a consolidated sentence of three years' imprisonment for all counts, to run from the date of conviction and sentencing by the trial court.
Court Disposition
application allowed in part; sentences revised
Orders
- The default custodial sentences imposed by the trial court are set aside.
- The applicant is sentenced to a consolidated term of three years' imprisonment for all counts.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.49 OF 2015
DUNCAN KATUA KIIO ……………………………………………………………………..APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC………………….………………………………………………………........RESPONDENT
RULING
The Applicant, Duncan Katua Kiio was charged with ten (10) counts of forgery contrary to Section 349 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence were that on various dates between 1st December 2010 and 31st May 2011, the Applicant, jointly with others not before court forged Equity Bank Deposit Slips purporting them to be valid and genuine and duly stamped by tellers of the said Equity Bank, Kitengela Branch. He was further charged with obtaining goods by false pretences contrary to Section 313 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence were that on diverse dates between 24th November 2010 and 1st June 2011 at Kitengela Aspendos Dairy Kenya Limited in Kajiado County, the Applicant jointly with others not before court, with the intent to defraud obtained 15,156. 7 litres of milk valued at Kshs.5,304,800/- from John Njire Maina by falsely pretending that he was in a position to pay for the same, a fact he knew to be false. The Applicant pleaded not guilty to the charge. After full trial, the Applicant was found guilty of all the counts. In respect of the forgery charges, he was sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs.70,000/- or in default he was to serve six (6) months imprisonment. In respect of the obtaining charge, he was sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs.200,000/- or in default he was to serve twelve (12) months imprisonment. In default of paying the fines, the trial court ordered the custodial sentence to run consecutively.
The Applicant has applied to this court to have the sentences that were meted on him run concurrently instead of consecutively. The Applicant was of the view that by ordering him to serve consecutive terms of imprisonment, his constitutional right to be sentenced to serve a fair sentence was infringed. During the hearing of the application, the Applicant told the court that he was reformed. He had learnt that crime does not pay. He undertook to change his life if the court gives him another chance. He told the court that he has a young family. He promised to utilize the skills that he had learnt while in prison. He prayed for the court to sentence him to serve a non-custodial sentence. Ms. Atina for the State opposed the application. She submitted that the sentences that were meted out to the Applicant were fair, lenient and fitted the crime taking into consideration the offences that the Applicant had committed. She urged the court not to interfere with the said sentences of the trial court.
When the trial magistrate sentenced the Applicant to serve the custodial sentence, she was exercising judicial discretion. This court can only interfere with such exercise of discretion if it is established, either that the sentence was too harsh or too lenient in the circumstances. The court will also interfere with the imposition of the custodial sentence if it is established that the trial magistrate applied the wrong principles of the law in sentencing the Applicant. In the present application, it was clear to this court that if the Applicant had paid the fines imposed, then, there would be no problem. However, by virtue of Section 28(1)(b) of the Penal Code, upon the trial court imposing custodial sentence in default of payment of the said fines imposed, it became apparent that the Applicant would serve a term of imprisonment that, cumulatively, would constitute a period of more than the maximum period he would have served (i.e. three years imprisonment) if the court had sentenced him to serve a custodial sentence instead of paying a fine. This court is of the view that the Applicant is justified in complaining that the default custodial terms that he was sentenced to serve consecutively constitute an illegal sentence.
In the premises therefore, this court will remedy the error by setting aside the default sentences that the Applicant was sentenced to serve by the trial court and substitute it with an appropriate sentence of this court. The Applicant is therefore sentenced to serve a consolidated sentence of three (3) years imprisonment for all the counts that he was convicted of by the trial court. The sentences shall take effect from 6th June 2014 when the Applicant was convicted and sentenced by the trial court. It is so ordered.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 19TH DAY OF MAY 2016
L. KIMARU
JUDGE